Greatest pianist ever

[awpp7]

Who is the greatest piansit ever ?

Richter or Gilels ?

[Brian Healey]

Liszt

or Tatum.


Peace,
Bri

[anda]

i'm sort of hoping wehaven't seen him/her yet

[silva]

Tatum

or Oscar Peterson

- Silva

[lostinidlewonder]

Claudio Arrau I just love all this playing, especially how he plays Liszt.

[xvimbi]

It's my girlfriend, no question whatsoever!

[dj]

Who is the greatest piansit ever ?

Richter or Gilels ?

don't you mean horowitz or rubinstein? 

[DarkWind]

Claudio Arrau I just love all this playing, especially how he plays Liszt.

My great grand teacher, no less!

Arrau is cool, but I'm pretty sure Liszt is the best, seeing as he taught Krause who hand in hand taught Arrau.

[JP]

Liszt

or Tatum.


Peace,
Bri

The truth..

[lenny]

possibly john rusnak

[rachmaninoff_969]

Liszt...

I don't think there is any question, even though none of us ever heard him perform.  The man could read anything at sight almost flawlessly, had massive technique (evident from his compositions), was in-tune with the modern music of his day, and well ahead in his own compositions (ie. B minor sonata contains the first 12 tone row) which makes him an even greater musician.  Plus he was good looking, charming, and had the showmanship to boot!  Also, it is evident from his compositions that he was not only a technical player, but one with superior musical intellect and expression.   I don't know of any other pianist who had all of these attributes to such a great extent.  Of course I do not mean to say that there are/were no other great pianists...but come on guys...Liszt is the God of the piano.

[Hamfast]

ok. i'm agree: If Liszt is the God of the piano, Chopin is his God.

[Brian Healey]

Ahh......but only Art Tatum had the nickname "God"



Peace,
Bri

[steinwayguy]

Richter is God. Or damn close.

[LVB op.57]

I still don't see how you can rate pianists you haven't heard. How do we know that in today's modern world, pianists wouldn't enjoy Liszt's playing. We know he could sight read anything, and we know he had technique to burn, but maybe we wouldn't like his interpretations of other composers' music. Or maybe his playing was mechanical. Or maybe he banged too much. We just don't know for certain. You must realize that technique is not what makes a pianist great. Tons of pianists have great technique, and as admirable as it is, it just won't end up seperating one person's playing from another at such a high level. I also don't believe there is a single "best" pianist.

[lenny]

yes, there is no single greatest pianist, its very subjective.

however the only objectively assesable aspect of pianists is their technique...in this regard maybe marc-andre hamelin is the greatest ever.

[SteinwayTony]

yes, there is no single greatest pianist, its very subjective.

however the only objectively assesable aspect of pianists is their technique...in this regard maybe marc-andre hamelin is the greatest ever.

Can you contradict yourself a little more?

[lenny]

i think its objectively almost impossible to disagree with me.

hamelin has it all, technique-wise.

[SteinwayTony]

The OP asks for the greatest pianist EVER.  You obviously forgot to factor in some dead guys.

But just to play devil's advocate, Ashkenazy has immaculate technique.  His double-thirds are extremely solid.

What I mean to say about contradicting yourself is this: you say it's "objectively almost impossible to disagree with" you, then you go and state your opinion that "Hamelin has it all."

"Has it all?"  That's probably the most SUBjective thing I've ever heard.  Give up, Lenny, you can't win an argument about subjectivity.  It's objectively impossible, as you would say.  Of course, you should probably try, because then your post count would get bigger.

[lenny]

'has it all' referred to his complete technique, double notes, chords, octaves, and general runs.

he is more atheletically capable than any other pianist i have witnessed in all these techniques.

just as how its possibly to judge the better runner by the time he ran a race in, its possible to judge the greater piano technique by the speed and control with which he executes passages.

and when i say more capable, there actually is negligible difference between him and his closest competitor - libetta and cziffra possibly, its like comparing the fastest 100m runner ever with the 2nd fastest - very small difference.

[SteinwayTony]

just as how its possibly to judge the better runner by the time he ran a race in, its possible to judge the greater piano technique by the speed and control with which he executes passages.

No, Lenny.  Comparing pianistic technique with olympic events doesn't work.  If that were true, then whomever plays the fastest Winter Wind etude would be considered the best pianist.  But that, of course, is not the case. 

When you think of an OBJECTIVE (adj.: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations) way of measuring "control," let me know.  In the meantime, I don't buy it.

[lenny]

No, Lenny.  Comparing pianistic technique with olympic events doesn't work.  If that were true, then whomever plays the fastest Winter Wind etude would be considered the best pianist.  But that, of course, is not the case. 

When you think of an OBJECTIVE (adj.: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations) way of measuring "control," let me know.  In the meantime, I don't buy it.

well, gavrilov plays the fastest winterwind etude with near perfect control, it practically shows that in the techniques that are intensively used in this piece - he is the greatest thats recorded it.

of course many pianists such as hamelin opt not to play as fast as possible, but their maximum speed can often be ascertained by the level of control and clarity they exhibit.

lets say he played winterwind equally as fast as gavrilov and yet with more clarity, he has the superior technique in the techniques required for that piece.

[SteinwayTony]

Lenny, you don't get it.

The definition of "objective," per Merriam-Webster, is "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations."

When you say Gavrilov "has the best control," that is not an fact.  That is an opinion, otherwise known as a personal feeling.  That is not objective in the least.

[lenny]

its pretty audible

although the control is more arguable than raw speed i think it isnt very arguable.

is it not obvious that gavrilov plays with greater control than say ...cortot?

[thracozaag]

  Yeah, but I still like Cortot's Winterwind better

koji (STSD)

[orlandopiano]

I'll take Cziffra or Kapell overall, but going only by sheer technique, you'll be hard pressed to find a more perfected refined technique than Hamelin or Kissin.
 
And to be perfectly honest, I think Koji's bud Mei-Ting possesses technical ability beyond belief.  (If he could just eliminate those slippery finger mistakes)  :-D

[SteinwayTony]

  Yeah, but I still like Cortot's Winterwind better

koji (STSD)

Subjectivity at its best.  Some people say they would rather listen to Cortot's wrong notes than another Chopin interpreter's right notes.

[lenny]

Subjectivity at its best.  Some people say they would rather listen to Cortot's wrong notes than another Chopin interpreter's right notes.

bear in mind that if they meant the wrong notes alone, then it would sound like schoenberg.

[SteinwayTony]

Call me when you decide on a point to that.

[ChristmasCarol]

Thanks for the great laugh.   Truthfully I think it would have to come down to a particular performance that was the best.  I once heard Bevery Sills say that she had exactly one performance where everything was perfect.  Did you ever hear this woman sing?  It seems to me that the response of the audience to a pianist is an important indicator ot their greatness.  After all music is a communication, hopefully from the gods.  I've had pieces move me to tears on one occasion and later not found them compelling.  There are so many factors in greatness, would you agree?

[hodi]

you forgot felix mendelssohn, who is said to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest.

there is a story that liszt played some piece for mendelssohn, then mendelssohn came to the piano after liszt finished playing and played what liszt played JUST FROM HEARING! he remembered all the piece!

mendelssohn - the greatest pianist! (and composer)

[LVB op.57]

A feat such as Mendelssohn's does not make him the best pianist. What it shows is that he had perfect pitch and a phenomenal memory. Mozart and Beethoven were both able to do the same thing.

[rachmaninoff_969]

Oh how amusing!  Yay Liszt!!!

[SteinwayTony]

you forgot felix mendelssohn, who is said to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest.

there is a story that liszt played some piece for mendelssohn, then mendelssohn came to the piano after liszt finished playing and played what liszt played JUST FROM HEARING! he remembered all the piece!

mendelssohn - the greatest pianist! (and composer)

Leonardo da Vinci painted a portrait of some chick named Lisa.  And then I copied it.  Thus, logic would have it that I am the greater artist.  Make sense?  Nope.    

I could point out a number of problems with your post (not with you; with the content of your argument), but please don't make me give the laundry list.

Besides, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

[magio]

Richter,Arrau,Rubinstein,Horrowitz,Giels,Gould,Chopin,Liszt,Alkan,Rachmaninoff is a popular top-ten!

[pianoplayjl]

Always Liszt.